The Third International Symposium on Circumcision was held from May 22-25,
1994, at the University of Maryland, College Park, Washington DC. I was
invited to the symposium to speak of the attitudes of Muslims regarding
male and female circumcision 193. The following report
on the symposium gives an idea about the problem of male circumcision in
the United States.

I. ORGANIZERS AND
PARTICIPANTS

The symposium was organized by NOCIRC 194, and was attended
by a hundred or so people belonging to the three great monotheistic religions
(Christians, Jews and Muslims), coming from the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Australia, England, France, Switzerland, Somalia and Egypt.

About forty of the symposium attendees delivered speeches, which
were followed by open debates. We also viewed two films, one on male circumcision
in the United States, and the other on female circumcision in Somalia.

Every aspect of circumcision was considered: medical, psychological,
economic, religious and legal. My own speech concerned circumcision within
Islamic law. It was preceded and followed by speeches on circumcision within
Christianity and Judaism.

An exposition of photographs and art work was arranged in a room
where one could also purchase or receive gratis numerous materials and
publications produced primarily by the conference attendees and other groups
that attended the symposium.

The symposium concluded on May 25th with a banquet during which
awards were presented to individuals who had contributed to the fight against
male and female circumcision. On May 26th there was a demonstration in
Washington DC against circumcision (see below).

II. REASONS OF THE SYMPOSIUM

As its title indicates, this symposium was the third of its kind. Although
female circumcision was discussed, this symposium principally dealt with
male circumcision, which demonstrates in itself that this form of circumcision
is a real problem, especially in the United States. What is the nature
of this problem?

Infant circumcision in the United States began not for medical
or religious reasons, but for social reasons. It began in the 1870s as
a Victorian attempt to prevent or cure masturbation, which at the time
was believed to cause bedwetting, alcoholism, insanity, curvature of the
spine and other physical and mental disorders. The practice spread from
England concurrently to other English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia
and the United States).

When the masturbation theory was dispelled and declared false
in 1948 by the British National Health Service, the rate of circumcision
was reduced to less than 0.5% in England. The rate of circumcision in Canada
and in Australia also was lowered, but remains still around 20%.

In the United States, with the development of hospitalized births,
male infant circumcision remains a common practice. The American medical
community has tried to find "medical" justifications for the continuation
of circumcision. Even today, the United States remains the only country
on earth where the majority of male infants are circumcised for non-religious
reasons. This rate is today 60% with differences from one region to another.
Approximately 3'300 babies each day are submitted to circumcision in American
hospitals. This represents more than 1'25 million children circumcised
each year. Several babies die as a consequence of the operation, which
is performed without anaesthesia, and which results in numerous medical
complications. Circumcision is considered today as one of the reasons for
the violence which rages in American society, where the crime rate is six
times larger than that in Europe: That which society does to its children,
its children do to society. In effect, circumcision injures the brain of
the child. It also impairs the normal functioning of the adult sexuality.
On average one forth of the skin of the baby's penis is amputated. This
has forced many Americans to seek restoration of their foreskin (see below).
Many authorities estimate that the violence done to the infant during circumcision
plays a role in the fatal conflicts in the Middle East between Muslims
and Jews, two groups that practice circumcision.

In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics has adopted
a neutral position towards male circumcision, leaving the decision to parents.
One cannot say, however, that they are properly informed of the implication
of their decision. Circumcision takes place in hospitals in the first days
of life. Doctors rarely give information on the benefits or risks of the
surgery. They even exert psychological pressure by expressing disapproval
when parents refuse to consent to the operation. The operation has become
a sort of routine, notably in the lower and middle classes. It is performed
in a barbarous (this word is not too strong) manner by doctors with clear
financial motivations, at the request of ignorant parents, and in any case,
it is forced upon infants who cannot express their wishes in the matter.
Certainly, in rare instances, circumcision can be useful in the treatment
of certain diseases like phimosis (but even in this case, there are medical
means of treatment without resorting to circumcision). But the real practice
of male circumcision in the United States, like everywhere else in the
world, denotes a trivialization responsible for a contemptuous regard for
the physical integrity of the child.

During the symposium, the participants tried to see how one could put an
end to male circumcision. In order to do this, it is necessary to consider
the roles of those responsible for the practice of circumcision.

1. The doctors

Doctors form an imposing body that is very difficult to confront. The participants
of the symposium expressed little confidence in them. One participant indicated
that it was pointless to try to convince doctors, for like all lobbies,
they are against society. Doctors profit by the operation of circumcision
and one can hardly expect them to willingly reduce their income. Circumcision
and the commerce of the foreskin constitutes a lucrative industry in the
United States, amounting to several hundred million dollars a year. Despite
this, some doctors have been converted and have become opponents of circumcision,
especially those at the end of their careers who have less to loose. Some
came to bring their testimony and to argue against circumcision. One of
these gave to NOCIRC the Circumstraint tray 195 on which
he used to perform circumcisions and delivered an address entitled, "Leave
it alone!".

2. The nurses

Nurses also participate in circumcision. These nurses can be easily mobilized
against circumcision by reason of the atrocious suffering they have witnessed
during the circumcision of babies. Circumcision is performed without anaesthesia.
We viewed a film of the operation and heard repeatedly the screams of the
infant being operated upon. It was truly unbearable. It is not an accident
that circumcision is always performed behind closed doors, the parents
not being permitted to watch. The baby is strapped by its hands and feet
and immobilized on a molded plastic tray which conforms to its body. The
foreskin is pulled to its maximum length and crushed by a metal clamp before
it is sliced off with a scalpel. We saw one of these plastic trays: a veritable
instrument of torture.

Nurses, however, fear that they will be relieved of their duties
and dismissed if as conscientious objectors they refuse to participate
in the operation. The founder of NOCIRC, for example, was a nurse. She
lost her job because of her opposition to circumcision. Actually, it would
seem that opposition is now becoming easier to assert. A dozen nurses from
St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico (of which several were Jewish)
196, were present at the symposium and gave us their
reasons for taking their decision. These reasons are:

Neonatal circumcision is a violation of a new-born male's right to a whole
(intact) body.

There are no compelling medical reasons for amputation of the penile foreskin.
Amputating the foreskin deprives the infant of a protective and sexually
functional part of his body.

Circumcision is a surgical procedure with risks of complications, including
bleeding, infection and mutilation.

Neonatal circumcision is painful. Often, inadequate or no anaesthesia is
used. Post-operative pain management is rare.

Parental information on this subject is all too often incomplete or based
on myths.

The infant is unable at this vulnerable age to state his own wishes or
to protect himself.

The nurses moved everyone in the auditorium to tears.

3. The insurance companies

Insurance companies could play an important role in the abolition of male
circumcision. In Canada, where insurance companies refuse to pay the cost
of circumcision, the rate of circumcision is falling dramatically. This
is also the case in certain American states. The organizers and participants
of the symposium would like to convince the insurance companies to cease
covering the expense of male circumcision.

4. The religions

Male circumcision is practiced by the adherents of the three monotheistic
religions: Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

Concerning Jews, the mandate for male circumcision comes from
the Bible. There one reads:

God told Abraham: "...Here is our alliance which shall be observed
between me and you, i.e. thy race after thee, may all your males be circumcised.
You shall have the flesh of your foreskin cut off and it shall be a sign
of alliance between me and you...When they reach their 8th day all your
males shall be circumcised from generation to generation... My alliance
shall be branded in your flesh as a perpetual alliance. The uncircumcised,
the male whose foreskin has not been cut off, this very life shall be cut
off. He violated my alliance" (Genesis 17:9-14).

It is in fact from this community that the fiercest opposition to the abolition
of circumcision is mounted. The so-called "medical" justifications for
circumcision were formulated principally by Jewish doctors. It would seem
even that the development of male circumcision among Christians in the
United States was a premeditated action on the part of the Jewish medical
community after the second World War. By circumcising as many Christians
as possible, they sought to make it more difficult to distinguish between
Jews and non-Jews in the event of a future persecution of the Jews. It
would seem also that there is a hint of Jewish proselytising behind circumcision
: A circumcised Christian is more easily converted to Judaism than an uncircumcised
one because he will not fear having to submit to circumcision as an adult.
Notice here that the Western world has passed laws prohibiting female circumcision,
but dares not to do the same for male circumcision for fear that they will
be considered anti-Semitic by the Jews. One must note, however, that even
the voice of American Jews is being added to the cry against the practice
of circumcision (see below).

Muslims systematically practice male circumcision. However, the
Koran makes no mention of circumcision. On the contrary, one can find verses
which can be interpreted as being against circumcision:

Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain (3:191).

He perfected everything He created (32:7).

[The devil said]: "I will mislead them, and I will create in them false
desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattles, and to deface the
fair nature created by God" (4:119).

One can deduce from the first verses that the foreskin is an integral part of
the human body created by God, and that one should not imagine that by cutting
it one is perfecting the work of God. The third verse considers the alteration
of Nature as obedience to the Devil.

The practice of male circumcision among Muslims derives from the
practice of the Jews: Each Muslim must be circumcised like Abraham, who
is considered a model man. One invokes also the recitations attributed
to Mohammed. These recitations, however, were collected 200 years after
the death of Mohammed.

Concerning Christians, Saint Paul advocates circumcision of the
heart instead of circumcision of the flesh (Epistle to the Romans 2:29).
Despite this, there is a trend among evangelical Christians in the United
States, who follow the Bible to the letter and who believe that this book
contains principles of medical science which the believer must follow,
such as circumcision. According to them, "what is good enough for the Chosen
People, is good enough for all mankind". Mormons too practice circumcision
even though their holy book considers the dictates of the Bible concerning
circumcision to be obsolete.

5. International organizations

International organizations refuse to involve themselves in this issue.
They are afraid of being considered anti-Semitic. This is the case notably
with the World Health Organization, The Population Council of the UN, the
Inter-African Committee, UNICEF, and Amnesty International. These organizations,
responsible for overseeing the respect of human rights, are always ready
to criticize -correctly so - female circumcision, but have become accomplices
in the violation of the rights of male infants to an intact body. The fear
of anti-Semitism paralyzes them.

6. National legislature: Towards a criminalization
of Male circumcision

Is it necessary to pass a law criminalizing male circumcision? This was
the question that arose frequently at the symposium. Although numerous
Jews who are opposed to circumcision attended the symposium, they were
generally against the adoption of such a law. The majority of participants,
however, were of the opinion that a law should be enacted which criminalizes
male circumcision along with female circumcision. There is no reason to
distinguish between the two forms of circumcision: both are mutilations
of healthy sexual organs of non-consenting children. There is no justification
for such mutilations. If the foreskin were useless, Nature would not have
make it. It is imperative in any case to leave the child intact until the
age of 18 when he will have the freedom to decide for himself whether he
wants to be circumcised or not. He is then even free to have his ears amputated
if he chooses, but one does not have the right for forcibly remove his
body parts when he is a baby.

I was the only lawyer present at the symposium. I requested that
next time the organizers should invite other lawyers and professors of
law in order to be able to begin a law project with the aim of condemning
male and female circumcision. I also proposed:

To identify those professors of law who might be interested in presenting
this subject in their lectures and to make available to them the necessary
materials;

to provide law libraries documents to enable researchers to make further
studies in this area.

Certainly, the adoption of a law criminalizing male circumcision would
provoke the anger and opposition of the Jews. But if a law were adopted,
the United States would be the first to be able to do so because of its
unconditional support of Israel. This is the only country which need have
no fear of being considered anti-Semitic, and it is in this country that
opposition to circumcision is the best organized.

IV. HOW TO RESTORE THE FORESKIN

This title may cause laughter. It is actually a technique known in the
past, notably in the Hellenistic Period (323-30 B.C.) and the Roman Empire
(27 B.C. to 140 A.D.). It is being revived in the United States.

This technique starts with the viewpoint that male circumcision
is an affront to the physical integrity and an impairment of the normal
functioning of the male organ, especially when a large part of the foreskin
is amputated. This technique consists in stretching the skin of the penis
in order to compensate for the parts removed in circumcision. One must
pull the skin of the penis and tape it in place in the first stage before
suspending metallic objects of a certain fixed weight using surgical tape.
The process takes about 15 months before the skin of the penis returns
to the length it would have had had it not been circumcised.

This technique was used by Jim Bigelow on himself and on others
197. Jim Bigelow is not a physician, but a psychologist.
He earned his doctorate in psychology at Claremont Graduate School and
served as a Professor of Psychology at Whittier College. He also pastored
several Evangelical churches. He has explained this technique in a book
198. I bought this book, which is full of observations
not only about restoration of the foreskin, but also about circumcision
in general, notably as it is practised in the United States. It is a scientific
publication, 239 pages long, very serious and heavily documented. It is
probably the most vibrant attack on male circumcision ever written.

Jim Bigelow is a charming man, full of humor. He was present at
the symposium. He delivered a speech using many slides. He did not hesitate
to mention his history of success and confessed to me at the end that he
wrote the book in the spirit of Christian charity. The restoration of the
foreskin using his method was successfully achieved by hundreds of circumcised
men, not only Christians, but also Jews (a fact which has not failed to
provoke the anger of Rabbis). Received at first with skepticism by the
medical community, his publication and his technique has ended by being
recognized. Several Europeans have tried it. Two doctors even came to the
symposium from Australia. Testimony from numerous Christians and Jews in
the auditorium offered support to Jim Bigelow, and confessed that they
experienced an enormous increase in sexual pleasure after restoration.
Furthermore, many support groups for circumcised men wishing to restore
their foreskin exist all over the United States, and even in Europe with
the mission of providing free advice and moral support 199.

V. DEMONSTRATION IN WASHINGTON

On the 26 of May the organizers of the symposium and the participants made
a demonstration in Washington in front of the Physicians Committee for
responsible medicine (P.O.Box 6322, Washington DC 20015). Many participants
brought with them copies of their birth certificates, signed by the doctor
who circumcised them. In front of this organization they burned their birth
certificates along with copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which does not protect the rights of children against sexual mutilation.
As this organization is situated across the street from a national television
station, several photographers and cameramen were present at the demonstration.

The director of the organization (Mr. Neal Barnard, M. D.) asked
that the demonstrators form a committee to meet him. The president of NOCIRC,
the president of NOHARMM 200, two other members of NOCIRC,
a Jewish nurse, who is a conscientious objector who refuses to participate
in circumcision, and myself (a Christian of Palestinian origin) were selected.
The discussion lasted about 45 minutes.

The director was very nice and allowed each a chance to speak.
I introduced myself as a Swiss Lawyer, a Christian of Palestinian origin,
and the nurse introduced herself as an American Jew, proud to be in my
company as a Palestinian. This served to relax the director. He said that
there were so many medical problems to regulate in the United States that
he could not take up the problem of circumcision without ignoring some
other problem. He also mentioned the budget problem, to which we replied,
that by beginning with respect for the child, he would have less to bother
with and at the same time would save a lot of money. As for our goals,
we told him that it was necessary to educate parents and to make a law
forbidding male as well as female circumcision. The child does not give
his consent, and in the case of circumcision the parents cannot give such
consent. In any case, in order for the parents to give valid consent, it
is necessary that they be informed, which is never the case in the United
States. I expressed my indignation at the high and unjustified rate of
circumcision performed in the United States; a practice which violates
the same human rights which the United States pretend to defend.

After leaving the meeting with the director, the Jewish nurse
and I declared before the cameras that this marked the very first time
in human history that a Jew and a Palestinian stood united to protect each
others children instead of killing them as in the Middle East. We were
very proud indeed.

This feeling of pride was shared by all the participants of the
symposium. All had the sense of being pioneers and that taking this position
had historic significance. It is the first time in history that a group
has decided to fight to put an end to a practice unanimously considered
to be barbaric and degrading.

The various speeches of the symposium are being published. I fervently
hope that the European medical community will take an interest in this
research and will take a position against both male and female circumcision.
I especially hope that European nurses will follow the example of the courageous
Santa Fe nurses and will refuse to assist in any more circumcisions.

CONCLUSION

In our opinion, a God who demands that his believers be mutilated and branded
on their genitals the same as cattle, is a God of questionable ethics.
It could be legitimate to perform either male or female circumcision, as
any other surgery, for specific, extremely rare, medical reasons on specific
individuals. But to arbitrarily mutilate children, boys or girls, under
the pretext that it is for their own good, shows an influence of cynicism
and fanaticism.

That is why there is no valid justification of the distinction
made between male and female circumcision. Doctor Zwang goes further: "Female
circumcision will never stop as long as male circumcision is going on.
How do you expect to convince an African father to leave his daughter uncircumcised
as long as you let him do it to his son?" 201 There
is no alternative but to condemn the attitude of international and non-governmental
organizations which dissociate one type of circumcision from the other,
giving legitimacy to male circumcision in the process.

Religion has been a means of justifying both male and female circumcision.
It is time to expose the irrationality behind this thinking and reveal
the harmful influence of some religious circles which are in favour of
it or refuse to denounce it.

That is the goal of this study which, I hope, will contribute
to the respect of the rights of all children.